Maajid Nawaz and the Hijab

In this video of Maajid Nawaz’s radio show, he has a very enlightening conversation with a Muslim woman on wear head coverings. When discussing the motive of wearing head coverings he draws her out very skillfully. She comes round to the real motive behind wearing head coverings when she says that it is not up to the woman (if she faithfully follows Allah) because Allah has said it and that is that.

This video is very enlightening when it comes to the reason for wearing head coverings by Muslim women.

Clarion Project’s Muslim Reform Activist, Raheel Raza is interviewed by Bill Maher after the release of Clarion Project’s film By The Numbers which looks at what Islamists believe and what support they have in mainstream Muslim society.

Islam and Feminism?

Asra Nomani discusses this in this video and it leads to questioning whether she is on the losing side, as the voices of Muslim reformers like her are not even taken seriously by the mainstream media never mind conservative Muslim leaders. We should support Muslim reformers as much as we can but never leave it just to them as this would be disastrous for Western society. They are an important tool in the fight against radical Islam, or as I argue conservative Islam, but only one tool. This is a war for the soul of our societies and we need to work together in mutual support but ensuring we don’t sit back thinking others will win the fight for us.

Under the rules, swimmers – including non-Muslims – are barred from entering the pool in normal swimming attire. Instead they are told that they must comply with the “modest” code of dress required by Islamic custom, with women covered from the neck to the ankles and men, who swim separately, covered from the navel to the knees.

I am sure many remember this article from the Telegraph from 2009 describing how British swim centres are coming under Sharia law – all at taxpayers expense. I went back and read this piece again since it had been on my mind after taking my son to a swimming gala held by Swim Ulster. It reminded me of my times in Muslim majority countries where most things were gender segregated and what we would see as normal social interaction is virtually non-existent.

It also reminded me of a business meeting I had in Freetown Sierra Leone with a Lebanese businesswoman (dressed in Western clothing) refused to shake my hand when the meeting concluded. This surprised me because Muslim women that do not adhere to Islamic dress codes usually have no problems with shaking the hand of a man. I talked to the friend that introduced me (a Muslim himself) what the issue was and he just laughed and commented that she was torn between Islamic culture and western culture and felt the clothes were acceptable, i.e. no head covering, but the handshake was going too far.

When you travel you expect such things and even in the UK you expect it when you see a Muslim woman adhering to Muslim dress code. What you don’t expect in the UK, or in Europe, is that the Muslim dress code being imposed on non-Muslims in a public setting. We have the attitude that if a person wants to dress in a certain way go for it (if it is their own choice and not imposed on them by peer or family pressure). What we don’t expect in the UK is that publically funded facilities enforce Muslim dress code on anyone.

After all Sharia law is not the law of the land the last time I checked. Yet we see this increasingly more common and we must ask the question where does it stop? For example, am I going to be told that I can’t put ham in my children’s lunches because it would offend Muslim pupils? It is already happening in some parts of the UK and do we expect it to spread as the influence os Sharia law increases in the UK?

by Daniel PipesJun 15, 2003
updated Jul 31, 2017A French publication reports on this recent development: “A swimming pool off-limits to men, with an exclusively female staff, and smoked windows. It’s not in Saudi Arabia but in France, in the fine town of Lille.” More interesting yet, this swimming pool is not a private concern but one of only four sponsored by the Lille municipality – which, by the way, has a woman mayor, Martine Aubry. “It’s a matter of modesty” explains a spokesman for the municipality, noting also that the women-only rules apply only during certain hours. A sign of things to come? (June 15, 2003)

Dec. 4, 2003 update: A half year later, the Lille swimming pool continues to provoke discussion and confusion. Agence France-Presse reports today Jean-Marc Ayrault, parliamentary head of the Socialist party and mayor of Nantes, saying that “the rule is mixing the sexes” in municipal facilities. But while he himself refused to accede to Muslim demands for sex-segregated sessions at the pools, he also refused to condemn the actions of the socialist mayor of Lille for permitting just that.

Dec. 12, 2003 update: The nearby town of Mons-en-Baroeul has ended the scheduled hours reserved for Muslim women in its municipal pool, in place since 1996. This decision was taken in September 2003, a result of the French national debate on “laïcism and the wearing of veils.”

Sohad Sarhan, left, and Manal Elsay cover the windows at North Seattle’s Meadowbrook Pool before the “Muslim Sister Swim” begins.

Sharkansky correctly points out that, as such, the center “should strictly comply with non-discrimination guidelines. Nevertheless, the Muslim Sister Swim is open exclusively to Muslims, no infidel women need apply. I asked a representative of the North Seattle Family Center to explain this, and she told me that it was to respect these immigrant women’s culture.”

Sharkansky concludes that “if there’s ever a reason for taxpayer dollars to be used to support an immigrant’s culture, it should be to support them in learning to shed whatever aspects of their culture are incompatible with American culture. The last thing we need to teach immigrants is to expect publicly-subsidized religious apartheid.” July 29, 2017 update: See “Seattle woman-only swims: No, it’s open to anyone female” for a major change.

Dawn Elmezyen, right, and her daughter Melanie Willis, 12, get ready to swim at the Cook/Douglass Recreation Center by covering the windows.

July 24, 2006 update: The Cook/Douglass Recreation Center pool at Rutgers University, a taxpayer-funded institution, has instituted Muslim women-only hours for two hours on Sundays. Swimmers pay $5 for each session, half of which goes to support the Noor-Ul-Iman School.

Dec. 9, 2006 update: The Thornton Heath Leisure Centre, a municipal facility in Croydon, a distant part of London, not only has women-only hours but also men-only hours. And, if that weren’t enough, Thornton Heath requires all swimmers during those gender-segregated hours to wear Muslim-style swimming gear. Yes, by decree of the Croydon Council, for two hours on Sunday afternoon swimming shorts that hide the navel and extend below the knee are de rigeur for men. And when it’s women’s hours, the swimming gear must cover from neck to ankle.

Some members responded furiously. “I turned up and saw a sign saying it was closing early for Muslim afternoon – I couldn’t believe it,” commented Daniel Foley, 44. “I think it is preposterous that a council should be encouraging this type of segregation over municipal facilities,” said Alex Craig, 34. “It seems the issue here is over modesty. Surely if Muslims want to swim then they should just turn up with their modest swimwear at the same time as everyone else. To make a special provision for them is just ridiculous and strikes me as imposing an ‘Us and them’ mentality which is wrong.”

In contrast, the Croydon Mosque thought Muslim-garb swimming sessions a grand idea. Its spokesman said: “Muslims are not allowed to show intimate parts of their body. This is non-negotiable. Muslims have as much right to go swimming as anyone else.” And a spokesman for Croydon Council said: “We are not giving preference to any one group but simply taking practical steps to create access to all.”

Apr. 17, 2008 update: So far, all the incidents have concerned keeping men and women apart; presumably, non-Muslims could swim in their gender-appropriate session. Now comes news from the Clissold Leisure Centre in Stoke Newington, East London, that a corporate lawyer, David Toube, and his 10-year-old son, Harry, were denied entrance to a pool because of not being Muslim. To their surprise, they had encountered the “men-only modesty session” taking place every Sunday from 8 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. at the municipal pool, which at least two websites advertise as being for Muslim men only. Toube recounts what happened when he turning up at 9 a.m. on April 13:

I arrived at the pool to discover that they were holding what staff described to me as “Muslim men-only swimming.” I asked whether my son and I could go as we were both male. I was told that the session was for Muslims only and that we could not be admitted. I asked to speak to the duty manager, who confirmed that this was the case. … I asked what would happen if I turned up and insisted I was Muslim. The manager suggested that they might ask the Muslims swimming if they minded my son and I swimming with them. If they didn’t object, we might be allowed in.

Clissold Leisure Centre later apologized. “Staff cannot ask your religion on entrance and you won’t be refused entry if you don’t appear to be Muslim.”

Nov. 12, 2008 update: Under pressure initiated by a Somali Muslim female immigrant, Lul Abdulle, the Portland, Oregon, municipality has agreed to set aside two men- and women-only hours each weekend at the Buckman Pool, complete with same-gender lifeguards. The sessions began in October. So far, however, the turnout has been small. The city is giving the program three to six months and then will assess it.

Teemu Raatikainen, the head of the Jakomäki public pool, says that Finns have also come to the pool during Muslims-only hours. He notes that it is not possible to check up on a customer’s religious affiliation. “We have not asked about it. We have trusted that customers know what times they are coming to.

The decision to reserve specific times for Muslim women was a controversial one in Jakomäki. “In principle, there is no impediment to common times for swimming. The woman’s religion is of no consequence. Islam teaches that a Muslim woman must not be naked in front of another woman”, says Pia Jardi of the Finnish Islamic Council. Finns are used to a different kind of modesty culture and these pool shifts make things easier on both sides. Following the rules is up to the individual. Islam gives the guidelines, that some people follow, and others do not.”

The initiative for hours reserved for Muslim women came from an association operating at the Jakomäki shopping centre seven years ago, and finally went before the Sports Department of the City of Helsinki. The reserved times have been very popular, although some problems have emerged. “A few fights between people of different nationalities have been reported in the showers.”

Loxford School in Ilford, east London: at weekly sessions for Muslim men, “it is compulsory for the body to be covered between the navel and the knees. Anyone not adhering to the dress code or rules within the pool will not be allowed to swim.”

Labour MP Anne Cryer (West Yorkshire) asks the obvious question: “I can’t see why special clothing is needed for what is a single-sex session.”

The Muslim-only sessions at Thornton Heath prompted one Croydon resident, Alex Craig, 34, to comment that “it is preposterous that a council should be encouraging this type of segregation over municipal facilities. Surely if Muslims want to swim then they should just turn up with their modest swimwear at the same time as everyone else.”

A press officer at the Croydon council said that the wording on its website is wrong, that the modest dress code is a suggestion, not a requirement. Indeed, the website was subsequently changed to remove references to a dress code. In contrast, an official at Thornton Heath insisted that the dress code is compulsory.

Aug. 17, 2009 update: The Sunday Telegraph garnered so much attention that the Croydon councilfelt compelled to remove the notorious guidelines requiring that non-Muslim swimmers cover up at a public pool (“During special Muslim sessions, male costumes must cover the body from the navel to the knee and females must be covered from the neck to the ankles and wrists”).

Of interest: The Croydon Mosque and Islamic Centre said it never asked for this regulation. According to Shuaib Yusaf, “If it was designated as a Muslim session to encourage Muslim women to come along, to that extent I could see a degree of merit in it.”

The Islam Democrats in the Hague municipal council denounced the municipality decision to cancel separate swimming. The mayor and aldermen said that people should meet other other while exercising, also men and women. But the supporters of separate swimming, used mostly by Muslim women, said the decision was symbol-politics.

July 5, 2010 update: The city council in Walsall, England put a film over windows at the Darlaston Leisure Centre after Muslim women complained about being seen. Which action upset non-Muslims. One of them says the pool has now lost its “pleasant views and open air feel.” Another says she is angry at the “very high-handed” way the council dealt with the matter: “It had lovely views before, now it is like before I had my cataract operation done – a cloudy effect.”

Clear glass panes at the lower end of the pool’s outer wall have been covered with a film to prevent onlookers from seeing in

Sep. 16, 2010 update: Here’s something new – not Muslim getting special treatment but non-Muslims having to submit to the Shari’a in Australia’s Victoria State.

Families are being ordered to cover up before attending a public event to avoid offending Muslims during next year’s Ramadan. The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has approved a ban on uncovered shoulders and thighs for a community event to be held at the Dandenong Oasis, a municipal pool. “Participants aged 10 and over must ensure their bodies are covered from waist to knee and the entire torso extending to the upper arms,” a request by Dandenong City Council and the YMCA states in an exemption application to the Equal Opportunities Act. “Participants must not wear transparent clothing.”

The request has been approved by VCAT and applies to a family event to be held at the pool next August. “The applicant intends this to be an event where people of all races and religions and ages may attend, use the Centre’s facilities and socialise together,” VCAT notes. “The holy month of Ramadan has a particular focus on families and the applicant wishes to encourage families to attend and socialise together with others. The minimum dress requirements are set having regard to the sensitivities of Muslims who wish to participate in the event.”

The ban on skimpy clothes will apply between 6.15 and 8.15pm on August 21 next year, a time when the pool is closed to the public and normally used by a Muslim women’s swimming group. The ban was yesterday compared by the Human Rights Commissioner Helen Szoke to a ban on thongs in a pub. “Matters such as this are not easy to resolve and require a balance to be achieved between competing rights and obligations,” she said. “Dress codes are not uncommon: eg singlets, jeans, thongs etc in pubs/hotels.”

Sherene Hassan, vice-president of the Islamic Society of Victoria, said she didn’t support the dress restrictions. “My preference would be that no dress code is stipulated,” Ms Hassan said. But Liberty Victoria said the ban was reasonable because the event was to be held out of hours. A spokeswoman for the City of Greater Dandenong said the ban would help Muslims feel part of the community.

Oct. 17, 2010 update: An entire class at the Borgtun school in Tromsø, Norway, must adapt to male-female segregated sports classes on account of a solitary Muslim student. The school administration took this step when the parents of a Muslim girl asked to exempt her from gym and swimming classes due to the family’s religious beliefs, choosing instead to separate boys and girls in these two classes for her grade level.

Nov. 16, 2011 update: Columbia Association, a municipal organization in the Baltimore, Md., area, has programmed woman-only swim times, 12:30 p.m. to 2 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays, at the Columbia Swim Center in the Wilde Lake Village Center, one of the 23 swimming pools it operates in Howard County. The Baltimore Sun article includes a round-up of other cases, one previously unknown to this blog: “New York City’s recreation and parks department offers a women-only swim time at the Metropolitan Recreation Center.

Apr. 6, 2013 update: Chris (who did not give his last name), 38 and a single father, signed his 9-year-old daughter for lessons in “Ultra Swim 1: Female class.” a nine-week course offered for free at the Dennis R. Timbrell Recreation Centre pool in Flemingdon Park (in the greater Toronto area). He learned on March 28 and again on April 4 that blinds would prevent him from watching her practice. When he protested, he was told this is for “religious reasons.” Chris related that he spoke to a staff member and “she told me that it’s because of Muslim women, that we’re not allowed to look at them or whatever.”

The city aquatics manager, Anne Jackson, indicated that the Timbrell pool also has a male-only swim course where only men can watch – no mothers allowed. She also said that nine pools in Toronto have female-only swim programs and all of them disallow fathers and other men from watching.

July 9, 2013 update: From swimming pools to tennis courts, the Shari’a advances step by step: Today we learn of women-only tennis sessions in Blackburn, England, though at private, not municipal courts. But must municipal courts be not far behind?

A women-only tennis morning has been launched in Blackburn. Women can play on the private outdoor courts, at Crosshill Tennis Club, Corporation Park, every Tuesday, at 10.30am. The privacy of the courts makes them suitable for Muslim women, director Waqar Hussain said, although everybody is welcome. He said: “The local women wanted something to do, and somewhere private, something without a car, and in the local area.”

Mr Hussain said he welcomed the debate on the clash between tennis rules and Islam. The Women’s Tennis Association rules said players should not wear sweatshirts, sweat pants, T-shirts, jeans, or cut-offs. … Mr Hussain said: “One or two members used to be very good and used to play in tracksuit bottoms and headscarves. This group is mums knocking a ball about, not doing much running, so they don’t necessarily need to dress up.”

Nov. 30, 2013 update: The provision of a men-only swim time at a municipal pool appears to have sufficed to provide legal cover for a women-only time in Tukwila, Washington State.

March 7, 2016 update: Special hours for women is one thing; destroying the possibility of swimming in public pools quite another. Ingrid Carlqvist documents the latter at “Sweden: Sexual Assaults at Swimming Pools.” The surge of illegal immigration to Sweden has led to young male asylum seekers turning public swimming pools “into ordeals of rape and sexual assault.” Carlqvist provides copious examples of these.

In addition, because of the Islamic ban on nudity, “young Muslim men refuse to take a shower before bathing, and keep their underwear on under their swim trunks,” leading to problems of hygiene in the pools. When they are told to take off their underwear, the Muslims sometime disobey. In one indoor park, Aq-va-kul, “youth gangs smashed the interior, threw objects in the water and threatened other patrons. Aq-va-kul was closed, and the pool was drained and cleaned of shattered glass. A few days later the pool was reopened, but it closed permanently to the public in 2015. Now the facility has been renovated, but is only open to competitive swimmers and swim clubs.”

Theresa Corbin, CNN, and the Myth of the Muslim Feminist

Some readers may have read my recent piece on Muslim immigration and our children’s future where I considered how things would change for our children in the West as Islam’s influence and power increased due to simple demographics (the more Muslims there are in a country the more influence they will wield). In this piece, I talked about how the increasing influence of Sharia law in the West would change our societies in a negative way.

Having researched the subject a little more over the last few days I have come across some very interesting articles from various women that maintain that they converted to Islam because it appealed to their feminist leanings. Obviously, this struck me as very strange given the fact that Islam is very clear on the place of women in Islam and any self-respecting feminist would recoil from Islam. The piece on the place of women in Islam (according to Islam) The place of women in Islam – Hijab, The Dress of Modesty in Islam is very instructive and is worth reading by any who foolishly believe that Islam and feminism are compatible.

The above title is taken from the attached video by David Wood on an article written by Theresa Corbin. You can see much of her writings here. Obviously a vocal proponent of Islam and one that seems in a state of self-delusion and total ignorance of what Islam really is and what it really means for a woman when Sharia is the law of the land.

It has always been of great interest to me (as someone who has lived and worked in Muslim majority countries and whose wife grew up in one as a non-Muslim minority) how `feminists’ can have an informed opinion of life for a woman under Sharia law when they have never lived under Sharia law. Instead, they enjoy the benefits of societies that reject Sharia law and thus do not have to comply with Islam’s position on women. Would Theresa Corbin have the same views if she lived under Sharia as a woman? How would her feminist principles hold up then?

The article that David wood is responding to in his video is I’m a feminist and I converted to Islam and can be found by following the link embedded in the title. The statement that struck me in the article was:

Surprisingly, Islam turned out to be the religion that appealed to my feminist ideals.

I have to say I did not know whether to laugh or cry when I read this. It seemed so incredulous that an intelligent woman living in the West could actually say this about Islam. It led me to ask the questions that David Wood asks in his video about her knowledge of Islam and the place of women in Islam.

In a recent piece introducing a video on the subject of women in Islam – looking at the experiences of three ex Muslim women – it was said:

Our culture is full of wisdom in the ordinary things. One of the pearls I love is the saying that goes: The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Islam, Modesty and Feminism – Sarah Haider, Hiba Krisht & Ghada

In recent weeks I have been thinking a lot about the place of women in the West if Islam increases its influence and Sharia gradually gets a foothold in our societies and ends up controlling the lives of our grandchildren. I considered this in my piece on Muslim immigration and our children’s future.

Our culture is full of wisdom in the ordinary things. One of the pearls I love is the saying that goes: The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

In many ways, I have lived this as I have lived and worked in Muslim majority countries for a significant amount of time and my wife hails from a Muslim majority country in Asia (as a non-Muslim minority). Yet I lived there as a male non-Muslim and because I worked for international organisations I was in many ways isolated from the personal control of Sharia in my life (but still had to obey Sharia in public). But you never really understand something unless it is dominant in your life. You can only judge the quality of something after you have tried, used, or experienced it.

So what is it like for a woman to live under Sharia regulations? What would it be like for women living under Sharia and stripped off all the rights provided by Western society?

These three women discuss it and give their personal experiences of it. It is part of the work of Ex Muslims of North America – an organisation well worth following.

Muslim rape gangs in the UK

The arrest and imprisonment of Tommy Robinson on May 25, 2018, while reporting on one of the trials of a Muslim rape gang, has highlighted once again this despicable situation in the UK. What is really sickening about this whole terrible situation is the fact that those highlighting it go to prison and those within the UK establishment that knew about these rape gangs for many years, and did nothing about it, have faced no consequences.

Murray’s article highlights the case of one senior British civil servant who avoided any consequences but ended up getting a large financial payoff and recently another senior job. Murray rightly points out that our system needs to change so that those that are at fault are held accountable and suffer actual consequences rather than being rewarded. You can see Murry’s full article by following the link below.

What price has been paid, is being paid, or might be paid at some stage, by all those public officials who tacitly or otherwise allowed these modern-day atrocities to go on, doing nothing to stop them?

Families of some of the abused girls related that they had tried consistently to raise the alarm over what was happening to their daughters, but that every door of the state was closed in their faces.

If Britain is to turn around the disgrace of its culture of ‘grooming gangs’, it should start by changing the risk-reward ratio between those who identify these monstrous crimes and those who have been shown to have covered them up.

“Having spent significant time as Chief Executive at Oxfordshire County Council, I have seen the vital work that Experience Oxfordshire does for the visitor economy, and I am delighted to now join Experience Oxfordshire as Chair of the Board. I am very much looking forward to leading the Board, helping to promote the wonderful place that Oxfordshire is to work, visit and live in.”

Founder of child protection charity Enough Abuse UK, Marilyn Hawes, said Miss Simons ‘besmirched’ the city with her role in the Bullfinch scandal and was the ‘worst person for the job’. She said: “The message we are sending out is that if you fail miserably you will still be able to come back. “If they are trying to promote Oxford for the beautiful city that it is, she is the worst person for the job. “She besmirched the city and was involved in the worst part of its history.”

We should all be outraged that such things were allowed to happen in the UK and that those charged with our protection, and the protection of our children, fail to do their job. Failed so badly with no accountability and no consequences for their gross failures to act on these heinous crimes. Not only did many escape the consequences but continued merrily in their careers and were rewarded by advancement in these careers. It leads you to ask: if these were young girls from a minority community and the men perpetrating these crimes were white, would they have been tolerated for so long?

Consider two of the videos that deal with the above issue as they are very informative.

Most would love to see a picture of this beautiful Muslim woman as representing the wives of Muhammad. But the fact is that he married a child at six and had sex with her at nine according to Muslim sources. This gives many Muslim men the justification for doing the same – is not Muhammad the perfect example to follow?

Some Muslims are embarrassed of the fact that their prophet had sex with a child when he was 53 years old. However, instead of leaving him they lie about the age of Aisha and strive hard to prove that she was much older that what she herself said in countless hadiths. Others are so shameless that they don’t even try that approach, but rather go on justifying their prophet’s pedophilia.

Muhammad committed many egregious crimes. Perhaps the most despicable and shameful was his pedophilic relationship with a 9 year old child. No decent human, in fact no one worth of being called a human would condone, justify and rationalize such a crime. Sadly, Muslims have abdicated their humanity. There is no trace of it left in them. They look, talk, eat and defecate, like other people. What they lack is conscience. That is what separates humans from the lowest creatures such as reptiles and insects.

Their justification of this crime of their prophet shows their depth of depravity. When one defends a pedophile they only prove to the word what a vile beasts they are. Someone wrote a book putting together all what Muslims say in this regard.
http://islamhouse.com/en/books/330161/

1. Is the Purpose Criticizing the Marriage of Young Girls or Distorting the Picture of Prophet Muhammad? …

The purpose is to show this despicable man was immoral, pervert and sick in the head and not the perfect human and the best example as he claimed. Such a person could not be a prophet of God. His actions were demonic and evil. He should be condemned not emulated.

2. If such Marriage was Strange, then why didn›t the Disbelievers of Quraysh use it as a Pretext against Muhammad?

It is not normal for a grown up man to have sexual feelings for a child, unless one is a pedophile, just a it is not possible for a heterosexual man to have sexual feelings for another man unless he is a homosexual. This is not about morality or culture. It is about a mental disorder. Only pedophiles are aroused by children.

In my years of study of pre-Islamic Arabia I never came across an incident that an old man marries a child. Arabs used to betroth their children at small age. They were both of similar age. The actual marriage took place when both children were adult. This practice of old men marrying small children started with Muhammad, whom Muslims regarded as the best example to follow.

Furthermore, assuming this was an old practice of the Arabs, is it something good? It is certainly a despicable act. A child has not the mental capacity to decide for her future and forcing her to marry someone whom she has not chosen is violation of her human rights, especially if the man is old enough to be the girl’s grandfather. I am not going to even talk about the harm done to her body as I believe any sane person know that already. The question is why instead of condemning this evil practice Muhammad practiced it? By doing so he made that evil practice a sunna for his benighted and brain dead followers. Muslims do what Muhammad did like zombies. There is no intelligence in these people. Whatever he did, no matter how egregious they do it. They even drink the urine of camel because Muhammad drank it. Once a person becomes a Muslim the brain is gone. He is no longer a human.

3. Did they know the Marriage Age in Judaism?

We are talking of the marriage of an old man to a child. Many cultures married their children at young age. Gandhi married his wife when both of them were 10 years old. Such marriages were intended to allow the couple grow together and form some sort of bond. This was an old silly belief, nothing to do with pedophilia that Muhammad legitimized.

4. Europe also allows Marrying Young Girls!

The legal age of marriage in all European countries is 18. The only two countries that allow the minimum age of 16 are Albania and Malta, both influenced heavily by Islamic culture. Again, we are talking of an old man’s sexual relationship with a child. That is not the same for two teens loving each other and fooling around. It is normal for two teens falling in love. But it is not normal for a 50 year old man lusting for a 6 year old child.

5. The Age of Consent in Most Countries Worldwide!.

The age of consent worldwide ranges between 18 and 21 with very few exceptions that allow marriage at 16.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age

6. Is it Logical to judge a Marriage Case that took Place before 1400 Years under the Laws of the 1st Century? .

Yes it is very logical. If we are not allowed to make such judgment then we can’t judge the crimes of any historic figure. One who is unable to know this act is evil is not worth to be called a rational person.

Moreover, this is not about the past. Muslims regard Muhammad as the best example to follow for all times. So children are raped in all Islamic countries every day in the 21st century because Muhammad did it in the 7th century.

7. Brides in Africa are Younger than Ten.

Not true. See the above link. Muslims do so by violating the law and get away with it.

8. It is not for Satisfying a Desire.

That is the stupidest argument. What else is it for? If the idea is to make alliances with hostile tribes, as Muslims say, does that not mean that the child is used as political pawn? What about her rights? Why not marry a grown up woman? Furthermore, Abu Bakr was already a devotee of Muhammad. He did not have to rape his little daughter to win his friendship. Abu Bakr was a brain dead cultist. That fool allowed Muhammad to rape his child for the greed of going to heaven an screwing 72 virgins. Both of them are now in hell and some demon is screwing them. Muslims who defend Muhammad’s practices will join them.

9- It is not logical to compare the American or western girl in the 21st century with an eastern Arabian girl before 1400 years.

Human physiology has not changed for the last couple of million years. Human fetus matures in nine months irrespective of race and climate, and all girls come to puberty around the age of 13. These numbers have not changed in the last two million years. A nine year old child is a child in Africa, in Alaska or in Arabia. Aisha narrated that although playing with dolls are prohibited in Islam, Muhammad did not object that she plays with her dolls because she had not reached the age of puberty when the “prophet” took her to his bed. She was playing dolls and Muhammad wanted to have sex with her.

Muslims know this, but still defend that sick man and the irony is that they demand respect. No! You don’t deserve respect. Pigs deserve more respect than any person who follows a sick pedophile.

Ms. Atiya Khan is a Pakistani television personality. After the Islamic terrorism of 9/11, instead of wondering what derives her co-religionist to commit such crimes against other humans and deepen her knowledge, which would have likely led her to leave Islam she decided to deepen her faith instead. When good people learn the truth about Islam they can no longer believe in it.

Islam attracts people inclined towards violence. From the biographies of Muhammad we learn that most early Muslims were thugs and criminals prior to their conversion. They did not reform, they used their traits to raid, rape and promote Islam. They found in Islam justification for their actions.

The fact that Muslims’ faith is strengthened after some of them commit an act of terror is strange, but it goes back to the time of Muhammad. Ibn Ishaq writes that the Quraish, the population of Mecca, ignored Muhammad until he began insulting their religion and telling them that their forefathers are in hell. [[1]] As the result, tension in Mecca was high and hostility was ready to erupt into violence.

One day, a group of youths from Mecca found a few Muslims of their age praying in a glen outside the town. They mocked them, and Muslims jumped at them and Sa’d ibn Abu Waqas smote and wounded one of the Meccans with a camel jawbone.

It’s well known that Muslims feel free to ridicule and malign all other faiths but have zero tolerance if their religion is slighted. Ibn Ishaq says, “This was the first blood to be shed in Islam.” [[2]] He also claims that as the result of this aggression, Muslims became stronger.
Another story is when Hamza, the rugged uncle of Muhammad, went to the mosque in Mecca. , took Abul Hakam who was sitting with a few other men off guard, and smote his head with his bow, which made his head to bleed. and again Ibn Ishaq gloats that as the result, everyone feared Muslims and the believers’ faith increased.

Other cases are the assassinations of Ka’b ibn Ashraf, the centenarian Abu Afak, and Asma bint Marwan, a mother of five children in Medina. After Asma was brutally murdered at night, Muhammad wanted to show off his power. He ordered her assassin, Salim ibn Umayr, to go back and taunt her small children for everyone to see the strength of Islam. Ibn Ishaq says, “Now there was a great commotion among Bani Khatma that day about the affair of Bint Marwan. She had five children, and when Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, “I have killed Bint Marwan. That was the first day that Islam became powerful among Bani Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact… The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of Bani Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam.”[[3]]

The above stories, not only show how Islam expanded through fear and threat of violence, they also tell us about the society in which it had emerged. Although cultures are different, human nature is the same everywhere. Those of us who live in free societies find it incomprehensible to submit to a religion or any ideology by force. That is only a delusion. Under duress and threat of death, almost anyone will eventually surrender and submit to force.

The fact that Muslims’ faith increase as Islamic terrorism grows is a psychological phenomenon. In my book, “Understanding Muhammad and Muslims” I demonstrated that Muhammad was a psychopath narcissist and his followers, to the extent that they believe in him and try to emulate him, evince his psychopathology. The psychopath becomes bolder with every victory and will increase his violence. On the other hand defeat makes him recoil. The psychopath is a bully when strong but a coward in heart.

The reason for the rise of Islamic zealotry today is the victory of Islam in many fronts, starting with the 1979 revolution in Iran, the defeat of the Russians in Afghanistan and the massacre of 3000 Americans 9/11. All these victories make Muslims more resolute, and as the result, more terror and violence ensue. The reverse is also true. Nothing dampens the bully’s zealotry more than defeat. The response to a bully who slaps you is not turning the other cheek nor to slap him back, but to cut off his hand so can slap you no more. The bully cannot help it. If he is not under your boot he will be at your throat. He speaks and understands only the language of violence. To stop, he must be utterly crushed.

Back to Ms. Khan! After watching the savagery of her co-religionists, this modern Canadian raised lady became so enthusiastic about Islam; she donned the veil and became its ardent promoter. In an interview she disclosed that the reason she decided to cover her hair was because by looking at women’s hair, non-maharam men will rob her of her energy. I am sure an Islamic university must have scientifically proven this phenomenon.

In recent years, thousands of young Muslim women have joined the jihad to provide sexual service for Muslim fighters. Voltaire said, those who make you believe in absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.

This is not rational, but Islam is not a faith based on reason. It is based on bravado and vain glory. All it takes for a moderate Muslim to become radicalized is the news that Islam is winning, for them to jump on the bandwagon of jihad.

This is happening again, as the terrorist of ISIS, have taken to butchering innocent people, many Muslim youths from all over the world have gained a new zeal to join them. The parents of these youths are shocked to learn that their kids have become terrorists, but they should not be. Moderate Islam is a breeding ground for terrorism. All terrorists were once moderate. Even those who are Muslim by name alone and nothing else are in danger. Ms. Khan is a good example. She was not a practicing Muslim, until 9/11. Today she runs a television show dedicated to promote Islam.

I have repeatedly stated that moderate Islam is the cradle of radical Islam. Islam is radical, and once the seed of this faith is sown, it will eventually grow into terrorism. Anyone who believes Muhammad was a prophet of God can become radicalized and even a terrorist. Give me a young impressionable secular Muslim and I will transform him into a terrorist in one day. All I will do is to show him the teachings of Muhammad in the Quran and hadith and show him if he wants to be a true Muslim he has to kill non-Muslims. Of course there is no guarantee, because humans are free to choose good or evil. After seeing the truth about Muhammad, he may decide to leave Islam. That was what I did and millions of others have done.

Meanwhile, Mrs. Kahn is sowing the seed of terrorism in her kids. Her children are still young. When they grow up, it will take no effort for someone to show them that a true Muslim is one who fights for Allah and Ms. Khan may join the list of countless other distraught parents whose children become suicide bombers and terrorists. If that happens, she will have no one to blame but herself. It was she who misled her children into accepting Muhammad as a prophet of God and groomed them to be scooped by the terrorists who can easily show them the real Islam is in fighting and killing non-Muslims and make Islam dominant.

As far as I can see Ms. Khan is not a scholar of Islam. Like most Muslims however, she believes her conviction and zealotry make scholarship redundant. It doesn’t.

I generally don’t debate enthusiastic Muslims who have not read my book nor have any knowledge of their religion. I make an exception this time since Ms. Khan is a public figure in Pakistan. She seems to have been in search of meaning and spirituality, but unfortunately in the wrong place. My duty ends by showing her the truth. The rest is up to her.

Ms. Khan replied to several of my charges. Here I am going to her rebuttal of the charge of misogyny that I laid on Muhammad. She wrote,

Misogyny is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women.” (From Wikipedia)

He [Muhammad] gave women the right to inherit property, right to divorce, right to choose a partner, right to work, right to public life, [and] he was loved by his wives and children, he gave [to] what woman said great importance and respect, [and] he was kind and playful with them.

He called his daughter Umma Abiha meaning mother of her father. He got up every time she entered the room gave her his seat and asked her to finish his sermons. He said that Fatima is of me and I am of Fatima. Whoever hurts her hurts me and whoever hurts me hurts God. This does not sound like a misogynist to me.”

Ms. Khan’s rebuttals are all short. You can read them in here:

She says Muhammad gave women the right to inherit property. Didn’t women in Arabia have that right before? Khadija inherited the wealth of her two deceased husbands and continued their business hiring men to work for her. Muhammad reduced that inheritance and the power of women. Contrary to what Muslims claim, Islam did not improve the status of women in Arabia. It actually took everything they had and denigrated them to such an extent that some years after Muhammad’s death Aisha complained, “Do you make us (women) equal to dogs and donkeys?” [[4]]

The following story, narrated by Abdullah ibn Abbas reveals how Arab women lost their freedom, thanks to Islam.

“I asked Umar, “O Chief of the believers! Who were the two ladies from among the wives of the Prophet to whom Allah said: ‘If you two return in repentance (66.4)? He said, “I am astonished at your question, O Ibn ‘Abbas. They were Aisha and Hafsa. Then ‘Umar explained, “We, the people of Quraish, used to have authority over women, but when we came to live with the Ansar, we noticed that the Ansari women had the upper hand over their men, so our women started acquiring the habits of the Ansari women. Once I shouted at my wife and she paid me back in my coin and I disliked that she should answer me back. She said, ‘Why do you take it ill that I retort upon you? By Allah, the wives of the Prophet retort upon him, and some of them may not speak with him for the whole day till night.’ What she said scared me and I said to her, ‘Whoever amongst them does so, will be a great loser.’” [[5]]

This is a long Hadith. Umar expressed his concern that the women of Medina were influencing the women of Quraish and teaching them to be more independent.

Mecca was a religious hub. In religious centers, people are often fanatic, and in patriarchal religions, women are discriminated. Mecca was no exception. It was natural that women in Mecca had a lower status than other Arab women. When these women migrated to Medina and saw the freedom that women enjoyed there, they wanted it too. This did not sit well with Umar and Muhammad, the two misogynist men of Mecca. The above conversation between these two central figures of Islam shows that they were not pleased to see their wives enjoying the taste of freedom.

Arabs were not used to writing their history. Very little is left of pre Islamic culture and way of life. Whatever was written, Muslims destroyed. What Muslim historians wrote of that time is all derogatory. Muhammad called anything pre-Islamic “jahiliya” (days of ignorance) and claimed that until he started his religion all Arabs (in fact all mankind) were ignorant. Muslims think Arabs buried their daughters alive and were constantly in war. They say that a woman prior to Islam was worth less than a camel and it was the Prophet who gave them the status of human being. The above hadith depicts a different story. We can see that Arab women had more rights prior to Islam.

Muhammad grew old, impotent and paranoid. He was strict with his wives, fearing the rivalry of young virile men. The verses that he revealed to frighten his wives lest they go astray became the norm for all women. Islam is a misogynistic religion because Muhammad was a misogynist.

Anytime that the Prophet needed to say the ultimate word and make others shut up, he would make his Allah reveal a verse. He was an old man, having a harem of a score of wives and concubines. His wives were young and beautiful. In his old age he became chieftain, and could afford to marry anyone. Some even came and offered themselves to him. He would choose only the young and the pretty. But political power is not a substitute to physical stamina. He was aware of the age gap between his young wives and himself. He was jealous and would warn his wives to not betray him.

30 “O Consorts of the Prophet! If any of you were guilty of evident unseemly conduct, the Punishment would be doubled to her, and that is easy for Allah. 31. But any of you that is devout in the service of Allah and His Messenger, and works righteousness,- to her shall We grant her reward twice: and We have prepared for her a generous Sustenance. [[6]]

He would often remind his wives to behave in a way as not to attract the attention of other men and cover themselves so they don’t become desired by strangers.32. O Consorts of the Prophet! Ye are not like any of the (other) women: if ye do fear (Allah), be not too complacent of speech, lest one in whose heart is a disease should be moved with desire: but speak ye a speech (that is) just. 33. And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless.[[7]]

Are these verses from God or the concerns of an impotent aging man with a bevy of young and attractive wives? Muhammad needed to control his wives and that is the reason behind the Islamic veil. What was originally meant for his wives became part of the Sharia and is imposed in all Islamic countries on all Muslim women.

Muhammad repeatedly emphasized the importance of women to obey their husbands. Did this have something to do with the fact that most of his wives were teenagers that he needed to control? His wives were uppity, as all teenagers are. To frighten them into submission he made his own wishes expressed by his imaginary friend in the heavens. Any time he had some domestic problems, Allah would rush to the rescue and reveal a verse or two to help him out. The following was used to put his wives in their places.

“It may be if he divorced you (all) that his Lord will give him instead of you, wives better than you, Muslims (who submit to Allâh), believers, obedient to Allah, turning to Allâh in repentance, worshiping Allah sincerely, fasting or emigrants (for Allah’s sake), previously married and virgins.”[[8]]

Is the maker of the universe so petty as to be concerned about the domestic affairs of Muhammad and wives?

The truth that women in Arabia had more liberty and authority before Islam, rather than after it, can also be evinced from the fact that Khadijah had a business of her own and had men at her service. Muhammad was but one of her employees. Do we have any tale of women after Islam running their own business and hiring men to work for them?

Women are Deficient in Intelligence

Muhammad said women are deficient in intelligence, and the majority of them will go to Hell by being ungrateful to their husbands.

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri,

“On ‘Id ul Fitr or ‘Id ul Adha Allah’s Apostle went out to the Musalla. After finishing the prayer, he delivered the sermon and ordered the people to give alms. He said, “O people! Give alms.” Then he went towards the women and said. “O women! Give alms, for I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-Fire were you (women).” The women asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is the reason for it?” He replied, “O women! You curse frequently, and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. O women, some of you can lead a cautious wise man astray.”[[9]]

Does a man who thinks women are responsible for leading men astray, that the majority of them go to Hell because they are ungrateful to their husbands, and are deficient in intelligence, respect women? Various versions of this hadith are repeated in several places. In another hadith he explained the reason for which he believed women are deficient in intelligence:

When women asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said, “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?” The women replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her religion.” [[10]]

So according to Muhammad, women are deficient in intelligence because the witness of two of them is equal to the witness of one man. And they are deficient in religion because during their menses they cannot pray or fast. What did he mean by “deficient in religion?” Perhaps he meant that women are spiritually less evolved than men?

The question is who made these laws? Wasn’t it Muhammad who said that women cannot pray during their menses and that their testimony is worthless? The logical fallacy consists in trying to prove one absurdity by the authority of another.

Hell is filled with women.

Muhammad used fear as a means to drive home his point. Like, Allah would allegedly send women to Hell for the most trivial of things, like displeasing their husbands.

He said, “I also saw the Hell-fire and I had never seen such a horrible sight. I saw that most of the inhabitants were women.” The people asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! Why is it so?” The Prophet replied, “Because of their ungratefulness.” It was asked whether they were ungrateful to Allah. The Prophet said, “They are ungrateful to their husbands and ungrateful to good deeds. If you are benevolent to one of them throughout the life and if she sees anything (undesirable) in you, she will say, ‘I have never had any good from you.’ “[[11]]

He must have said this to intimidate his own wives who most likely were reluctant to have sex with an old infirm man, who sweated and smelled foul, as I have shown in my book, “Understanding Muhammad”. There is no mention of men going to suffer any consequence for mistreating their wives.

Jabir ibn Abdullah narrated when Muhammad told women that the majority of the inhabitants of Hell were women and they asked why, the messenger of Allah said: “For you grumble often and show ingratitude to your spouse”. And then they began to give alms out of their ornaments such as their earrings and rings which they threw on to the cloth of Bilal. [[12]]

Beating Women

Men are allowed to abuse their wives verbally, emotionally and physically. The Quran says:

“Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in their bed and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High.” [[13]]

This verse established the position of women in Islam. It denies their independence, makes them subservient to men, states that men are masters and owners because they are the breadwinners. It implies that women are incapable of and should not be allowed to work and become providers. It assumes women’s work at home and taking care of children and house is worth nothing and she must be grateful for the food that her husband gives her.

Note that a woman does not have to disobey her husband to be beaten. She may not have to even think of it. The mere fact that he fears that she is thinking of disobeying him licenses him to beat out of her. Will he be answered for beating her? No! Umar narrated, “The Prophet said, ‘A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.’” [[14]]

Several hadiths report that Muhammad and his close companions beat their wives.

Umar found the Prophet sitting sad and silent with his wives around him. … (He) decided to say something which would make the Prophet laugh, so he said, “Messenger of God, I wish you had seen (the treatment I meted out to) the daughter of Kharija when she asked me for extra money and I got up and slapped her on the neck.” God’s messenger laughed and said, “They are around me as you see asking for extra money.” Abu Bakr then got up, went to Aisha and slapped her on the neck, and Umar did the same to Hafsa. [[16]]

Narrated Aisha: A necklace of mine was lost at Al-Baida’ and we were on our way to Medina. Abu Bakr came to me and hit me violently on the chest and said, “You have detained the people because of a necklace.” [[17]]

Iyas ibn Abdullah reported God’s messenger as saying, “Do not beat God’s handmaidens;” but when `Umar came to God’s messenger and said, “The women have become emboldened towards their husbands,” he gave license to beat them. Then many women went round God’s messenger’s family complaining of their husbands, and he said, “Many women have gone around complaining of their husbands. Those are not the best among you” [[18]]

When a woman who was beaten severely by her husband went to Muhammad to complain he ignored her request.

Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” When ‘AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, “By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this,” holding and showing the fringe of her garment, ‘Abdur-Rahman said, “By Allah, O Allah’s Apostle! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa’a.” Allah’s Apostle said, to her, “If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa’a unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you.” Then the Prophet saw two boys with ‘Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), “Are these your sons?” On that ‘AbdurRahman said, “Yes.” The Prophet said, “You claim what you claim (i.e.. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow,” [[19]]

So the fact that this woman was beaten to such an extent that her body had turned green was not enough excuse for her to ask for divorce. The only time a woman is entitled to ask for a divorce is when her husband is impotent. The good news is however, that a woman has the right not to be hit in the face.

Hakim ibn Muawiya al-Qushairi quoted his father as telling that he asked, “Messenger of God, what right can any wife demand of her husband?” He replied, “That you should give her food to eat, clothe her when you clothe yourself, not strike her on the face, and do not revile her or separate from her except in the house.” [[20]]

To be fair, we should be grateful to Muhammad for saying women should not be reviled in public. At home it is okay.

Women are toys

Umar was once talking when his wife interjected, so he said to her: ‘You are a toy, if you are needed we will call you.’”[[21]]

And ‘Amru Bin al-’Aas, also a Khalif, said: “Women are toys, so choose.”[[22]]

According to the great Islamic philosopher Imam al Ghazali, “In the company of women, looking at them, and playing with them, the soul is refreshed, the heart is rested, and the man is strengthened to the worship of God…this is why God said: ‘That he might rest in her.’ (Q. 7:189)”[[23]]

These men were not stating their personal opinions but rather echoing that of their prophet who said, ‘The woman is a toy, whoever takes her let him care for her (or do not lose her).”[[24]]

Barra’a narrated, “The Prophet sent message to Sauda informing her that he had divorced her.” He married her in Mecca. No one among the Quraish would marry him and Sauda was the only woman eligible among his followers. Barra’s says, “When Sauda heard the news, she sat in the way of the Prophet to Aisha’s house. When she saw the Prophet she told him, I beseech you by the one who has revealed to you the Quran and has exalted you above all the creation to tell me why you divorced me. Have I done something wrong that has offended you? The Prophet said no! Sauda said, I then beg you for the sake of the same God to not divorce me. I am getting old; I don’t need to be with a man. You can use my turn to stay with Aisha, but I wish that in the day of resurrection to be counted amongst your wives. The Prophet agreed and Sauda said that since then the Prophet spent the nights that were her turn with his favorite wife Aisha.” [[25]]

Muhammad decided to divorce Sauda because she was not attractive. He had now a harem of young wives and Sauda had outworn her usefulness. No mention of Sauda’s age is made. Ibn Sa’d says she died during the rule of Muaviyah in the year 54 Hijra.[[26]] Muhammad married her about a month after the death of Khadijah, i.e. three years before Hijra. Therefore, Sauda died 57 years after she married Muhammad. What is the normal age of a person? Larger overweigh people don’t live long. But let us say Sauda died at the age of eighty. 80-57=23. This means she was 23 years old when she married Muhammad who was 50 years old at that time. She must have been young since despite having become a widow, she still did not have a child. If she died at the age of 90, which is unlikely, she could not have been older than 33 years when she married Muhammad.

We can see how Muhammad viewed his wives and women in general. When the greatest scholars of Islam say women are toys, it is because Muhammad said it.

Jabir bin ‘Abdullah, one of the companions of Muhammad, narrated “I was with the Prophet in a Ghazwa (raid/terrorist ambush). He asked me, have you got married?” I replied in the affirmative. He asked, “A virgin or a matron?” I replied, “I married a matron.” The Prophet said, “Why have you not married a virgin, so that you may play with her and she may play with you?” Jabir replied, “I have sisters (young in age) so I liked to marry a matron who could collect them all and comb their hair and look after them.”[[27]]

Women are inferior

The superiority of men over women is ratified in verse 2:228 where it says: “and men are a degree above them (women).”

While the Quran recognizes that the works of men and women are interdependent, it does not regard them as having equal worth. Men are a step above the women and superior to them. “And it is for the women to act as they (the husbands) act by them, in all fairness; but the men are a step above them.“[[28]]

Commenting of the verse (Q. 4:34) Ibn Kathir says, “Men are superior to women, and a man is better than a woman.”

Razi, commenting on Q. 4:11, says, “(The males share is that of two females). Man is more perfect than the woman in creation, and intelligence, and in the religious sphere, such as the suitability to be a judge, and a leader in worship. Also, the testimony of the man is twice that of the woman. So that whoever is given great responsibilities must be given correspondingly great privileges. As the woman is deficient in intelligence and of great lust, if she is given much money, much corruption will be the result. The male is mentioned first in Q. 4:11 because the male is better than the female.”

This superiority as Razi understands the Quran, is due to man’s natural superiority in “knowledge and power, and because the man gives his wife the dowry and spends on her.”

Women are sex objects

For Muhammad; women were nothing more than sex objects. It is reported that he refused to shake hands with them. To get their allegiance he plunged his hand in a bowl of water and then asked the women to do the same. What is so sexual about a simple handshake? Was he torn between his sexual impulses and his religious ideals? Something must have happened in his mind that made him feel guilty when he touched women.

Jabir also reported that Allah’s Messenger saw a woman, and so he came to his wife, Zainab, as she was tanning leather, and had sexual intercourse with her. He then went to his Companions and told them: the woman advances and retires in the shape of a devil, so when one of you sees a woman, he should come to his wife, for that will repel what he feels in his heart. [[29]]

I wonder how a wife would feel knowing her husband is fancying another woman and is using her to relieve himself. This is the morality of the prophet of 1.2 billion people!

The Quran and hadith are full of derogatory remarks on women. The following is an example.

Narrated Abu Huraira: “Apostle said, ‘If a husband calls his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relations) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning.’” [[30]]

Doesn’t Allah have anything better to do than worry about the sexual pleasures of his male servants? It seems quite absurd that God would employ so many angels to sit around and curse the women who do not please their husbands sexually. Hadiths like this are repeated so many times that one starts to suspect whether Allah is a dirty old pervert voyeur who gets pleasure watching people having sex.

Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: By Him in whose hand is my life, when a man calls his wife to his bed, and she does not respond, the One who is in the heaven is displeased with her until he (her husband) is pleased with her. [[31]]

“If a woman spends the night deserting her husband’s bed (does not sleep with him), then the angels send their curses on her till she comes back (to her husband).” [[32]]

Why Muhammad was so concerned about sex? It’s because he was an old man, his teeth were decaying and at least two of them were broken. His mouth had a foul smell. (These are not wild claims. I have backed them all in Understanding Muhammad.) But his wives were attractive courtesans. They must have enjoyed their status as the wives of the Prophet and the first ladies of Arabia, but as I have shown in my upcoming book, The Life of Muhammad under the Light of Reason, they were reluctant to sleep with him. The warnings about the angels’ curses and Allah’s wrath were to coerce his wives to sleep with him.

Here is another of his obscene statements regarding women. He said, “After me I have not left any affliction more harmful to men than women.” [[34]]

In every occasion he found an excuse to poison the minds of his followers with ridiculous talks like the following.

“Woman is like a rib. When you attempt to straighten it, you would break it. And if you leave her alone you would benefit by her, and crookedness will remain in her. [[35]]

How can Muslims respect their women when their prophet was so scornful of them, so contemptuous of their faith, so derisive of their intelligence, so dismissive of their rights and so disdainful of their status?

He said, “Many amongst men reached (the level of) perfection but none amongst the women reached this level except Asia, Pharaoh’s wife, and Mary, the daughter of ‘Imran. And no doubt, the superiority of ‘Aisha to other women is like the superiority of Tharid (i.e. a meat and bread dish) to other meals.”[[36]]

Here Mohammad is confusing Miriam, (in Arabic Maryam) daughter of Imran and sister of Moses and Aaron with Mary (also Maryam in Arabic) mother of Jesus. He made the same mistake in the Quran. Miriam is not an important religious figure. She even disobeyed God once.

Muhammad had no regard for women. To him women were sex objects created only to satisfy men.

Women are like domestic animals

In his last sermon Muhammad said, “Now then, O people, you have a right over your wives and they have a right over you. You have [the right] that they should not cause any one of whom you dislike to tread on your beds; and that they should not commit any open indecency (fā ishah). If they do, then God permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain from [evil], they have the right to their food and clothing in accordance with custom (bi’l-ma‘rūf). Treat women well, for they are [like] domestic animals (‘awānin) with you and do not possess anything for themselves. You have taken them only as a trust from God, and you have made the enjoyment of their persons lawful by the word of God” [[37]]

Commenting on the Quranic verse Q. 30:21 which states “And of His signs is that He created for you, of yourselves, spouses, that you may repose in them” Fakhr ad-Din ar-Razi wrote:

His saying ‘created for you’ is a proof that women were created like animals and plants and other useful things, just as the Most High has said ‘He created for you what is on earth’ and that necessitates the woman not to be created for worship and carrying the Divine commands. We say creating the women is one of the graces bestowed upon us and charging them with Divine commands to complete the graces bestowed upon us, not that they are charged as we men are charged. For women are not charged with many commands as we are charged, because the woman is weak, silly, in one sense she is like a child, and no commands are laid upon a child, but for the grace of Allah upon us to be complete, women had to be charged so that they may fear the torment of punishment and so follow her husband, and keep away from what is forbidden, otherwise corruption would be rampant.”[ [38]]

Another eminent Muslim thinker, Hadi Sabzevari, in his commentary on Sadr al-Mote’alihin wrote:

“That Sadr ad-Deen Shirazi classifies women as animals is a delicate allusion to the fact that women, due to the deficiency in their intelligence and understanding of intricacies, and due to their fondness of the adornments of the world, are truly and justly among the mute animals [al-haywanti al-samita]. They have the nature of beasts [ad-dawwab], but they have been given the disguise of human beings so that men would not be loath to talk to them and be compelled to have sexual intercourse with them. That is why our immaculate Law [shar’ina al-mutahhar] takes men’s side and gives them superiority in most matters, including divorce, “nushuz,” etc.” [[39]]

Women are the symbol of disease and affliction

When Muhammad dreamed a black woman, he interpreted it as the sign of disease.

Narrated Salim’s father “The Prophet said, “I saw (in a dream) a black woman with unkempt hair going out of Medina and settling in Mahai’a. I interpreted that as (a symbol of) epidemic of Medina being transferred to Mahai’a, namely, Al-Juhfa.” [[40]]

Even in religious matters he asserted the symbolic inferiority of women.

Narrated Sahl bin Sa’d: “The people used to pray with the Prophet tying their Izars around their necks because of their small sizes and the women were directed that they should not raise their heads from the prostrations till the men had sat straight. [[41]]

In the following hadith he sealed the eternal enslavement of women.

Narrated Abu Huraira: “The Prophet said, “It is not permissible for a woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day to travel for one day and night except with a Mahram .”[[42]]

As for Muhammad’s great respect for her daughter Fatima, which Ms. Khan stated, it is all made up by Shiites. The historians report that while Muhammad had given Aisha a slave girl, she gave none to Fatima. She came to complain but Muhammad was not home. His wife Zeinab bint Jahsh told him about it and he went to her home at night. Ali and Fatima were in bed. He told them not to get up. He then placed his foot on the chest of Ali and told the couple that they have no right to complain. This was the source of enmity between Fatima and Aisha who was ten years her junior.

Muhammad had no respect for Fatima or her husband Ali. Ali knew it. When Muhammad was on his deathbed, his uncle Abbas pulled Ali aside and said, “Ali, three nights hence you will be a slave. I swear by God that I recognized death in the apostle’s face as I used to recognize it in the faces of the sons of Abdu’l-Muttalib. So let us go to him; if authority is to be with us, we shall know it, and if it is to be with others we will request him to enjoin the people to treat us well.’ ‘Ali answered: ‘By God, I will not. If it is withheld from us none after him will give it to us.’ The apostle died with the heat of noon that day.” [[43]]

This story should put to rest any claim that Shiites have regarding Ali. Apparently Ali had more hope that the believers may elect him as their leader than Muhammad giving him the authority. As history proves, he was so disliked that after the death of Fatima he remained isolated, no one wanting to associate with him. It also answers Ms. Khan’s unsubstantiated and undocumented claim that Muhammad had a lot of respect and love for his daughter. Narcissists don’t love anyone. They use people.

I can write a book on Muhammad’s misogyny. How can any self-respecting woman believe in a man who called her deficient in intelligence and faith, a crooked rib, inferior by degrees, and a tilt upon which her man can enter from whichever way he likes?

My question to Ms. Khan is whether she agrees with the above statements of her prophet. If she does then there is no point to continue this debate. No one is interested to read the opinion of one who is deficient in intelligence. And if she does not agree, then why she is still a Muslim!

———————

Ali Sina is the founder of faithfreedom.org, a site created to help Muslims see the reality of Islam. He is the author of “Understanding Muhammad and Muslims”. He is looking for a publisher for his new book The Life of Muhammad under the Light of Reason.

Women before and after Islam

An Achaemenid Unit of Persian Female Warriors 1000 Years Before the Invasion of Islam

Women serving in Persian Sassanid elite cavalry

Women in Islamic Republic of Iran beaten for exposing their hair

Afghani Women under Taliban Regime

Pre Islamic Arabs had such high regards for women that they worshipped three female deities. As with all triple goddesses, a religious concept found worldwide, Al Lat has three manifestations, each one connected to a phase of the moon and simultaneously to a phase in a woman’s life. The waxing, crescent moon is represented by the maiden Qur, the young girl and virgin (the Greek Kore, from which Quraish is derived); Al Uzza (the strong one) is the full moon or mother aspect (the mature woman corresponding to the Greek Demeter); and Al Menat is the waning moon or the crone, a wise old woman concerned with fate and skilled in prophecy and divination..

The sacred black stone was a symbol of al Lat’s Yoni. The Goddess resided in her aspect of Earth Mother, creatrix of life and helper of women in childbirth. People came to pray, to ask for offspring and protection, and to celebrate life.

21st Century Saudi Women

Under the Sharia a man has complete power over his wives and his right hand possessions (slaves)

Bassam Zawadi has written a series of “rebuttals” to several of my articles. I have ignored them because they are so shallow. However, Amir, who was once a Muslim and left it after reading my book has been insisting that I respond to them. I promised him that I would and he has held me to my promise even though I have a lot to do. Anyway a promise is a promise. Here is my second response to Bassam Zawadi’s “rebuttal”. I wished someone with a bit more knowledge would write a rebuttal to my articles.

Ali Sina’s problem here isn’t with the Holy Prophet (S), but in fact it is with Aisha (R). The reasons why this accusation is itself lame are because:

1) Back then, it was perfectly normal for a girl at young age to marry. We know this because before Aisha was married to the Holy Prophet (S), she was engaged to someone else

At no time it was “perfectly normal” for an old man to marry little girls. In the old days parents use to betroth their children, sometimes in their infancy. This was done until very recently (70 years ago) in some villages in Iran. Gandhi and his wife were ten and nine years old when they married. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about an old man having sex with a little girl. We are talking about pedophilia. It is normal for children to fall in love. They fall in love with another child of their own age. But it is not normal for a fifty year old man to fall in love with a six year old girl.

2) Who are we to tell Aisha now what is right for her and what is wrong for her? Aisha (R) remained all her life married to the Holy Prophet (S), and even when she was given the chance to divorce the Holy Prophet (S), she did not divorce him! A case like this shows that both of them loved each other

A six year old child is not in any position to choose her life partner. In the case of Aisha she probably thought this is normal because even her benighted parents had consented to this shameful betrayal of their trust.

We are not concerned about Aisha. She is dead. We are concerned about millions of little girls who are victimized today because of this tradition set by Muhammad.

To say Aisha was given the choice to divorce Muhammad is a silly argument. Divorce him and were to go? Medina had become the compound of Muhammad and every Muslim had become a cultist. The atmosphere was full of terror. How could she live a normal life after divorcing Muhammad? Anyway, this did not apply to Aisha who was brainwashed since childhood. This applied to Safiyah, Rayhanah and Juwariyah who were captives, whose relatives had been slaughtered and their villages destroyed. Where could they go?

Cultists do stupid things. Many cultists allow their wife or daughter to have sex with their beloved leader. This does not mean that they do it with conscience. Cultists lose their conscience and can no longer be regarded as responsible people.

3) Noone objected to Aisha’s marriage with the Holy Prophet (S), infact everyone was happy! It seems the only person who has a problem, is Ali Sina and his crowd.

In a cultic atmosphere no one objects to the despicable deeds of the leader. The cultist becomes befogged and those few who see something is wrong do not dare to question. I have explained this phenomenon with many examples of modern day cults in my book Understanding Muhammad.

4) It was Aisha’s parents who approved of this marriage. They deemed it good to marry their daughter to the Holy Prophet (S), and indeed they did a great thing, as Aisha grew up to be a great scholar of Islam!

The followers of David Koresh let him sleep with their wives while they themselves were told to practice celibacy. Cultists do very stupid things. They are no longer in control of what they do.

This man says he saw Khomeini solicited one of his devout followers to let him have sex with his five year old daughter. The man agreed. The little girl screamed and cried all the night and the father heard everything and smiled. Does that mean what Khomeni did was okay because that foolish father agreed? You must read my book to understand cultic mentality and hence you will understand Islam.

Aisha was no scholar. She was someone who remembered what Muhammad did and said and narrated them. That does not make her a scholar. But then again, all Muslim scholars are of that kind. They are a bunch of ignoramuses who have memorized the hadith and the Quran mindlessly, but understand nothing and cannot reason like normal people. I have not memorized any of that garbage, but I can defeat all Muslim scholars because I understand Islam. Anyone can do that. If you understand Islam you can defeat all Muslim scholars. If you read my book, you will understand Islam.

5) When one looks up the definition of a “pedophile”, you will find that pedophiles have: “”Low self esteem. Many pedophiles, although by no means all, do not have a great sense of capacity for adopting a sexual demeanor towards adults or those of their own age or older. They feel unhappy and fearful at the prospect of sexual behaviour with adults and hence turn to children due to the fact that they are unable to have the strength of personality to seek adults for sexual demeanor. When considering treatment therefore it is important to establish and develop a higher sense of self-esteem in such individuals.” (Source). Obviously that is not the case with the Holy Prophet (S), as his other wives were older then Aisha, two of his wives were older then him, specifically Sauda (R) and Khadijah (R).

Muhammad had a very low self esteem. That is why he developed narcissism. Narcissism is a reaction to hide the low self esteem. I have explained this in my book extensively.

Muhammad was unable to have a normal relationship with women of his age. Khadijah was to him a sugar mommy. She took care of all his needs like a mother would do. That woman had her own psychological problems. She suffered from co-dependency aka inverted narcissism. After her death Muhammad did not marry a woman of his own age. Sauda was at least half his age and then he kept collecting teenagers.

6) If the Holy Prophet (S) was a pedophile (Astaghfirullah), then one must ask why didn’t he consummate his marriage with Aisha right there and then when Aisha (R) was six years old? Infact, this source says: “Lack of impulse control. Many pedophiles find it extremely difficult to deal with the impulsive nature which inclines them towards sexual behaviour to children. They simply cannot control their need for engaging children in sexual practices. They might be said to suffer from an obsessive-compulsive condition. Here again treatment would involve developing better impulse control and of course redirecting the sexual inclinations.” (Source, same as above). Thus, if the Holy Prophet (S) was a “pedophile”, according to the definition of a pedophile, he would have no control over his sexual desire. On the contrary, the Holy Prophet (S) waited 3 years after the marriage contract to consummate his marriage with Aisha.

Muhammad wanted to consummate his “marriage” with Aisha right away. Abu Baker pleaded with him to wait. Muhammad did not want to lose the trust of his foolish follower and complied.

We must also remember that Muhammad was not just a pedophile. He wanted to be a prophet and hence he had to preserve an image of propriety. We see him in Jaun, after raiding that town and killing people, a little girl with her wet nurse are brought to him and he tells her to give herself to him. The girl says can a princess give herself to an ordinary man? Muhammad raises his hand to beat her and she screams, “I beseech Allah from you.” Muhammad stops. That is because his followers were watching. He had to balance between his animal instinct and his deception of being a prophet and portraying an image of holiness.

Of course pedophiles exert some self control. They don’t jump on all children they see. They wait for an appropriate time when they cannot be caught. All predetor animals know when it is not safe to attack. The fact that Muhammad waited for three years was to appease Abu Bakr and it is not an indication that he had self control.

It is unbelievable that a person becomes so bereft of reason that would defend such a perversity and bring up these silly excuses to justify such a hideous crime. That is what blind faith does to cultists. Poor Zawadi is a cultist. Even he may leave Islam if he reads my book.

Muhammad did suffer from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. I have dedicated a whole chapter in my book to this topic alone.

7) Can we honestly say Aisha (R) would’ve remained with the Holy Prophet (S) after she was allegedly “molested”? We must remember that Aisha (R) was very wise, and a great orator and she was quick to comment when she saw something wrong. If she was in any way, shape or form “molested” by the Holy Prophet (S), then she would’ve never remained married to him!

Having sex with a child is molesting her. There is no other way to put it. The fact that the victim is not aware of the abuse does not mean that the abuse does not take place. There are many cases of children that are abducted and abused for years and they get used to it and do not escape even when they have a chance. The case of Elizabeth Smart is a good example.

She was kidnapped raped daily but when found by police she was not cooperating and claimed to be someone else. You must read the chapter titled Psychology of Fear in the latest edition of my book to understand this phenomenon.

8) The women who spoke to Aisha (R) when she was marrying the Holy Prophet (S) were happy for Aisha. When she married the Holy Prophet (S), they praised her, they didn’t cry for her, or pity her for marrying a person who is, allegedly, as Ali Sina claims a “pedophile” (Astaghfirullah!).

This is cultic behavior. The followers of Jim Jones cheerfully gave the poison laced Cool Aid to their children and drank it themselves. Does this make what they did normal? Listen to this horrifying last tape in Jamestown. Everyone is happy to commit suicide. This is cultic mentality that describes Muslims’ behavior who praise “martyrdom” and murder.

9) Even the Non-Muslims who were quick to yell and shout when they saw something they didn’t like in Islam didn’t think anything was wrong with this marriage. After all, how can they say this marriage was wrong, when in the Arab culture it is normal for a girl at a young age to marry?

It is not normal for 50 year old men to have sexual feelings for little girls. This is part of human psychology and has nothing to do with culture. It is simply not possible for normal men to have any other feeling for little girls other than parental feeling. If an adult feels sexual feeling for little girls he is a sick person that has to seek psychological help or shoot himself quickly before causing harm to innocent children.

Not even Arabs with such a low morality married little girls when they were that old. For a normal man it is not possible to feel sexual by a little child. What part of this Zawadi does not understand? Even though pedophilia is legitimized, most Muslims don’t practice it. It is legal, but they don’t do it because they don’t get aroused by children. Muhammad gave legitimacy to pedophiles.

Didn’t the enemies of Muhammad criticize him for it? How does Zawadi know? They were all subdued and no trace of their criticism was left.

10) Do we honestly think if Aisha (R) were alive today, she would support people like Ali Sina, who claim she was molested, and that her husband was a “pedophile”??

Probably not! Aisha was so victimized that she had no understanding of what is normal. Many Muslims are unaware of the abuse that they suffer. But when they leave Islam and start seeing the abuse, it is then that they come to despise Muhammad. This does not happen with ex-Christians, ex-Jews or ex-Hindus. Only ex-Muslims see the extent of abuse. Others simply leave their faiths and say it was a lie. Muslims see more than lie. They also see the abuse. Brainwashed people don’t see the abuse.

Lastly, we end this section with some quotes from Aisha (R):

Sahih Al-Bukhari

Volume 1, Book 6, Number 299:

Narrated ‘Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Aswad:

(on the authority of his father) ‘Aisha said: “Whenever Allah’s Apostle wanted to fondle anyone of us during her periods (menses), he used to order her to put on an Izar and start fondling her.” ‘Aisha added, “None of you could control his sexual desires as the Prophet could.”

I have quoted this hadith in my book and explained it. Muhammad was impotent. It is not that he controlled himself. He simply could not do it. He satisfied his lust by fondling his wives but was unable to perform intercourse.

Sahih Muslim

Book 006, Number 2439:

‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) used to kiss (his wives) while fasting and embraced (them) while fasting; but he had the greatest mastery over his desire among you.

Thus, according to the words of our Mother Aisha (R), the Holy Prophet (S) had the greatest control over his desire amongst the people. Thus, Aisha (R) herself has refuted the Christian missionaries, and anti-Islamic haters like Ali Sina with these quotes of hers!

How Aisha would know that? Did she have any experience with other men to compare Muhammad with them? That is another subject. She did have a fling with Safwan. However, what she interpreted as “mastery over desire” was due to Muhammad’s inability to perform. He contented himself with foreplay, and fondling. He “drank their honey” as one hadith puts it, but he could not perform intercourse. I have dedicated several pages in my book to Muhammad’s impotence.